ROBIN SHEPHERD: WILL THE UK PUSH TO IMPOSE MID-EAST PEACE THROUGH THE UN?
http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/will-uk-join-push-for-ultimate-solution-of-mideast-peace-through-the-united-nations/#more-3371
Will UK join push for ultimate solution of MidEast peace through the United Nations?
Amid all the brouhaha over British Foreign Secretary William Hague’s visit to Israel this week, the key question of the moment has yet to be asked: If peace talks fail, will Britain join France and others in openly declaring that a Middle East peace might have to be imposed through the United Nations?
I have not seen a clear and unambiguous quotation from the Foreign Secretary or any of his senior officials to that effect. But if you put together everything that is being said and everything that is not being said, and you set that against the international mood music my instincts tell me that we are ineluctably heading towards the UN route.
For example, as the BBC’s MidEast headline today roars: “Mid-East peace talks: UK says window ‘closing’”. But what does that mean in practice? That Britain would be prepared simply to let matters rest should that window ultimately close? That the UK would say: “a plague on both your houses” and retreat back to the island and wash its hands of the whole business?
If only the British outlook were characterised by such indifference. Here is how the BBC characterises the British position in its article today:
“Mr Hague said that both sides had obligations, but that it was largely up to Israel to break the impasse.’We do want Israel to announce a new moratorium on settlements [said Hague]… That is what the whole of Europe wants, that is what the United States wants,” he said.”
In other words, Israel is going to get the blame if and when the talks collapse.
It is not that there is anything new in all this. It is just that the Arab/Palestinian side has been remarkably successful in portraying Israel as the intransigent party in a current round of peace talks representing history’s last chance for a solution. Either there is an agreement on the way or something radical will have to be considered. And that “something” would be an imposed settlement authorised by the UN Security Council sometime in the middle of 2011.
Look. I have no proof, and this is little more than speculation. But given that British foreign policy in the Middle East has long been driven by a foreign office that is almost as slavishly deferential to the Arabs as it is to the United Nations, given that the new British government is almost entirely opportunistic in the management of its foreign policy, given (see last posting but one) our new strategic ally France has mooted the UN route, and given that the Palestinians and the UN are already preparing the way for such a move, the notion that Britain is going to jump on the bandwagon has a certain inevitability about it.
The Palestinian/Arab side can hardly be under any illusions as to how weak Britain has become under the new government and how prone it is merely to go with the flow of global events.
At the very least, it would be good if the journalists would start posing the question. Because if Britain and France do join forces diplomatically (as they have recently agreed to do militarily) on this issue, this would constitute a powerful combination to help legitimise and energise a movement that already has the support of dozens of nations in the Arab and Musim world.
The UN route would be a disaster for Israel’s security. But it is the looming issue of the moment, and we urgently need clarity on precisely where Britain stands on the matter.
Amid all the brouhaha over British Foreign Secretary William Hague’s visit to Israel this week, the key question of the moment has yet to be asked: If peace talks fail, will Britain join France and others in openly declaring that a Middle East peace might have to be imposed through the United Nations?
I have not seen a clear and unambiguous quotation from the Foreign Secretary or any of his senior officials to that effect. But if you put together everything that is being said and everything that is not being said, and you set that against the international mood music my instincts tell me that we are ineluctably heading towards the UN route.
For example, as the BBC’s MidEast headline today roars: “Mid-East peace talks: UK says window ‘closing’”. But what does that mean in practice? That Britain would be prepared simply to let matters rest should that window ultimately close? That the UK would say: “a plague on both your houses” and retreat back to the island and wash its hands of the whole business?
If only the British outlook were characterised by such indifference. Here is how the BBC characterises the British position in its article today:
“Mr Hague said that both sides had obligations, but that it was largely up to Israel to break the impasse.’We do want Israel to announce a new moratorium on settlements [said Hague]… That is what the whole of Europe wants, that is what the United States wants,” he said.”
In other words, Israel is going to get the blame if and when the talks collapse.
It is not that there is anything new in all this. It is just that the Arab/Palestinian side has been remarkably successful in portraying Israel as the intransigent party in a current round of peace talks representing history’s last chance for a solution. Either there is an agreement on the way or something radical will have to be considered. And that “something” would be an imposed settlement authorised by the UN Security Council sometime in the middle of 2011.
Look. I have no proof, and this is little more than speculation. But given that British foreign policy in the Middle East has long been driven by a foreign office that is almost as slavishly deferential to the Arabs as it is to the United Nations, given that the new British government is almost entirely opportunistic in the management of its foreign policy, given (see last posting but one) our new strategic ally France has mooted the UN route, and given that the Palestinians and the UN are already preparing the way for such a move, the notion that Britain is going to jump on the bandwagon has a certain inevitability about it.
The Palestinian/Arab side can hardly be under any illusions as to how weak Britain has become under the new government and how prone it is merely to go with the flow of global events.
At the very least, it would be good if the journalists would start posing the question. Because if Britain and France do join forces diplomatically (as they have recently agreed to do militarily) on this issue, this would constitute a powerful combination to help legitimise and energise a movement that already has the support of dozens of nations in the Arab and Musim world.
The UN route would be a disaster for Israel’s security. But it is the looming issue of the moment, and we urgently need clarity on precisely where Britain stands on the matter.
Comments are closed.
